Jimmy Has No Fear
Jimmy being Jimmy Carter of course. I love the guy, I have to admit, which might make me appear to be a flaming liberal and you know I would hate for that to happen. The guy has worked diligently all his life and long after his presidency to change things with his own hands and with his own voice and hes received nothing but criticism for it. Yet he continues to speak his mind without fear of the ensuing avalanche of naysayers.
Unfortunately in the U.S. you have to be a brazen cowboy to garner any respect, take Ronald Regan for example, of course he made mistakes too but the republican PR machine put him on a pedistile so high, even the late Pope John Paul II has trouble touching it.
When they would criticize Jimmy Carter’s term in the White House they would say, “What a weak fool, he preaches about the environment and conservation so he turns the heat so low in the White House that he has to wear a sweater, what kind of president is this?” These are the same people who now criticize John Edwards for getting a $400 haircut while preaching solidarity with the poor, working classes of America. Apparently if you’re a Democrat you’re damned if you do and damned if you dont. This is the great weakness of the Democratic party, they could never dream of competing with the Republican media machine.
The only people who are free from partisan character assassinations are former Presidents. Even Richard Nixson, who did far less than George W. Bush in my estimation, and who resigned for his cumulative conspiracies was held in high regards and respect in his later years. I think that unwritten rule of respect and admiration for former presidents is crumbling fast because Jimmy Carter has already become the black sheep president. It started when he wrote, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The way the Zio-Nazi’s had their way with him was despicable. I dont believe one U.S. politician stood up and denounced his ridicule even though many were disgusted by it. Going against “The Lobby” can be career assassination, we all know that. Now that the Lobby has taken steps to destroy the image of President Carter, the ball is in motion and he is lambasted openly as the first President in history to be publicly disrespected by his country, how sad.
Recently Carter made fair statements about the current administration in the true spirit of democracy, which is criticizing your leaders. Saying about Dick Cheney…
“He’s a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world,” and “I think he’s been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he’s prevailed.”
Instead of respecting his words as a former president there’s no doubt the media will throw him on the fire, they have as much respect for freedom of speech as the administration.
Is there anyone in the world who is free to make fair criticism without being labeled a dissident? Unfortunately I doubt it, Desmond Tutu is a good example of that but there might be hope after all.
Join the Conversation
Jimmy Carter is in a class of his own. Not many people are doing what he is doing at his age of 83 and with his own money to help bring positive change and to highlight travesty and inhumanity. He is one person worth emulating.
I agree. Right-wing nutcases can bash him all they want, he’s probably achieved more positive things in his lifetime than all of his critics combined.
It was during the Carter administration that the U.S. government began to recruit and train Muslim extremists to fight its proxy war against the Russians in Afghanistan. I complied some information about it here
http://gettingtruth.blogspot.com/2007/08/in-this-interview-with-former-president.html
Likeable guy, but pitty he wasn’t a more effective president. All those great ideas would have been of much more value when he was still president. And I agree with RandalJones…like the presidents before and after him, he allow too many foreign policy blunders to occur.
gary
What’s done is done. They always say hindsight is 20/20. At least he’s doing something now he feels strongly about as a private citizen. I don’t see other former head of state doing this. I’d mention Al Gore, but he wasn’t a head of state, but nevertheless, he’s kicking butt with his global warming awareness campaigning.
Something we easily ignore when talking about former heads of state, specifically former U.S. Presidents, is how many advisors, chiefs of staff and other offices specifically the CIA, that influence and even control U.S. forign policy. I dont doubt that Foreign policy blunders existed within the Carter administration but lets not forget that the policies that make blunders have always been a part of U.S. policy. No president is going to go in and put a hault on the way things are done, the infrastructure is already put in place.
WIth that being said I can see how Jimmy Carter’s inaffectivness as a president may be a reflection of his hesitance to perform all the tasks the infrastructure demanded.
Regardless of all that, if Jimmy Carter truly was a lame duck President, he has definitely out done himself in his post presidential works.
D.B.,
Why not? And even if you believe a president can’t change such things, couldn’t a president at least voice these concerns? One of the presidential candidates (Ron Paul) has said very clearly that he would disband the CIA. Works for me…
gary
I dont see why any president would try to change the system or even admit to wanting to change it. Those who do are prodceeding with a self defeating method. Ron Paul for example has doomed himself by being so upfront about his intentions. His policies are a threat to hundreds of thousands of Jobs not to mention the aspirations of American politicians for the last 200 years. What he desires is a direct contradiction of U.S. Capitalism but people dont seem to understand that. People dont understand that U.S. intervention in foriegn governments and economies is just as much a part of our capitalist system as domestic growth.
The CIA has led multiple coups in other countries to protect american interests, in 1924, 1954 1958, and as recently as 2002. Even though Ron Paul might be right he is a completely fool to think the republican party who prospers under the current system would dare choose him as their candidate.
Again the system is already in place and i venture to say the system is stronger than any one man in office. He can either play by the rules or be taken down by that very system. The coups that were carried out in other coutries were specifically because the leaders of those countries refused to play by the rules, look up Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.
If the CIA will tear down other governments for not playing by the rules what do you think would happen to an american president who threatened that entire Infrastructure?
randaljones I have read the excerpt you provided and it only asks the question, if it was president Carters initiative that drew the Russians into Afghanistan, bringing about the break up of the Soviet Union, then why isnt he given credit for taking down the Soviet Union as opposed to Ronald Regan?
Yea it created blow back, we see that now, but if anything its a credit to Jimmy Carter not a discredit. Such is the Republican media monster. When mistakes arise through hindsight, perspective shows Democrats fault and Republican prowess. No different then what happened to Bill Clinton recently for not acting on Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance.
D.B.,
This will certainly be an interesting election….both the Republicans AND the Democrats are generally failing to inspire people. You’re probably right in that Ron Paul will not be nominated, in which case I’ve heard he might run as a Libertarian. And from what I can tell, Ron Paul seems to have a LOT of fans. Could be the perfect storm!
Capitalism does not require US intervention to succeed, unless I’m misunderstanding your definition of intervention. Canada and China are the #1 and #2 trade partners with the US, respectively…are we intervening in those countries?
Last of all, I personally vote for candidates irrespective of their chances of winning. And I’m perfectly comfortable with that strategy. To do otherwise means you’re fine with the status quo.
gary